The Best CD players thread

Glare is my biggest hatred when it comes to CD players. Take it as read that any player I like will be glare free, I have zero tolerance of it and I cannot fathom how anyone can put up with it.

Karik III is an exceptionally tidy and detailed player. I haven't owned one but a mate brought one round for an expended listen. I had an Arcam Delta 170 and Black Box 1 or 2 at the time, they were known for being less abrasive than most, yet thenKarik III made them sound pretty ragged and lacking in resolution.

I have had Karik 1s and 2s in my system for longer but they are different to the III. Still nice players with good timing, but a bit too "tightened" for me to love them. Well built too. I'd still fancy a Numerik DAC but they go for more than I'd pay right now.

I'm using original master recordings as a memory , not a vinyl player reproducing already compressed vinyl cuts as a reference you see. Did you hear a QED Digit with twin Positron-size supplies? It's a rather different and livelier sounding animal to the slushbox basic version I assure you and mine came with the standard 12V transformer as well as a Positron which is clearly better, even as one supply! Adding the second made a substantial difference for the better, and the second supply I'm using is a Beresford Caiman one kindly gifted by Stan B and used through an S-Booster. Cable ferrites aplenty too on these power lines...

The CD-S mk1 is a very coloured and un-natural beastie to me and others not brainwashed when at Studio 99 and on a decent system, even a Linn and Naim one, we found the sonic processing it suffered from was easy to hear - we had access to many brands the outlying Linn-Naim dealers wouldn't have and what clinched it was first being loaned a Sony 1610 pro A-D-A processer which was sonically invisible if wired through a tape loop (it was the early digital editors that seriously caused the damage) and a magnificent Linn Numerik Pro DAC, which a colleague was totally converted to digital by, hence our getting in touch with Absolute Sounds to try a few things our Naimie sales director didn't want to know about and refused to let the shop stock, much to the eventual decline of this company which folded in the late 90's after he took over! The CDS-2 was a different thing entirely and despite a very slightly 'creamy' delivery, to me it just totally got out if the way and was system immune too - a rare thing in my experience, the mechanics of CD playback disappearing completely. A Linn CD12 was staggeringly good in a wide open system, but sounded total pants into a little Denon stack system, where the CDS-2 delivered some power and scale into such a system I remember. The CD94 abrasive? I heard many samples and they're bland if anything. A now deceased friend of mine had a CD 80 and it's a goodie too, but probably would benefit from a clock update as my Micro Seiki did twenty years ago now - eek! I was lucky working in the dealers I did as I got to hear various players in many different systems over the years so I feel I was able to get a basic picture of their overall performance and not just one sample in one given stereo system... What seriously ages me in fact are speakers, as some tinselly filling-removing models seem to mellow down after twenty or more years of rock music thrashing

The LP12/Ekos/OC9 may well have sounded good to you, but in so many ways it's a long way from the master recording! Sorry, I use this as an old memory reference and there's a 'way' the masters sound that few domestic vinyl players approach, although the heavyweights with a good singing Decca or properly sorted MC will come very close in my experience - Things like DL103's and SPU's have great 'stability' to the image presented, but they don't have the bite and sparkle there in the original recording. I'm probably a lone voice here. Bass power in vinyl is largely a colouration I think, as bass is actually taken down in level and the remaining mono'd when typical commercial records are cut. AT's moving coils often show the upper mid emphasis that's really there - and their spiced up highs are perfect for softer grade Japanese vinyl I gather, which softens the sound more than harder types I'm informed.

In the late 80's, a few firms tried to make digital sound like 'vinyl,' and the dull squidgy sonics was awful into a good system. The 1983 CB Naim and 'brik system I loved to hear on vinyl ended up sounding good with cartridges with a bass up/top down balance (Rega R100 and later, a Karma) and anything 'flat' sounded too bright through them.

I deeply miss the ATC 100A's I once had. At more realistic volumes (anti-social to everyone else), any source colouration was ruthlessly revealed, yet with a good vinyl source with cleaner bass reproduction, they were excellent (surprisingly for me at the time). I used the Mentor/Decca Microscanner and Dual 701/V15 VMR and a good friend with ATC 50A's had an LP12/Ittok/OC9 and a Linn Kairn as preamp (he replaced it with e better sounding 5103 av preamp set to stereo but not sure as to the phono stage).

I can't 'use only my ears' as my ears can change daily. I was so lucky then to have such good sources and master tape copies to try to use as a reference. best CD's used to be simple masterings of classic 50's jazz albums (often recorded in the US), where the recording was simply done with no compression or undue messing around and the digital dubbing was straight with minimal messing too.

See, if the Denon 1520 wasn't as 'driven' I'd look at the system to find out why (bear with me). I feel the 1520 inverts the phase and into the downstairs Spendor BC2's which have issues still (they're not fully original sadly as the bass drivers are later spec from SA2's and not quite the same), the absolute phasing seemed critical when compared to the Micro (easy to alter on the Micro by re-wiring the interconnect XLR plugs). In the upstairs workroom system and with my Crown and NVA amps, I can't tell the difference!

I had a PDM1 mk2 and it needed a mains filter (Croft 4A one in my case) to remove the edgy dirt (the Deltec one was too expensive and Crofty did a great one cheaper). I used it at length with various players borrowed from work as transports until I played with a Teac VRDS 10 (great transport but not as good sounding), a Marantz CD 10 (too sickly sounding and odd on piano tone) and finally the AVI, which was up to a 'good' Karik/Numerik standard (these latter varied all the time as well).


The above is just me prattling on and sharing memories, nothing more. I'd seriously urge any of you to try the cheapo 'fiver' DAC with £40 Chinese linear supply that RD and I often use - it's seriously good despite the cheapo tin box it comes in

On the subject of the Marantz 80 and 94, I think this may be a good case for the theory that we each only take to or reject certain elements of the sound rather than its entirety. Or it could be language we use to describe perception. Maybe my "abrasive" isn't everyone else's. To me, both models just seemed to harden the strands of the music and make them collide with each other in a real cacophony. It's all there, but not in any form I can relax to. It reminds we of when my wife puts on her American sitcom Boxsets. All I ever hear are raised voices, emphasised delivery and canned laughter all colliding! At the same time she sits there enthralled and goes with the flow.

We mentioned this idea of "suspension of disbelief" in previous chats. To me the way sounds seem to compete and clash with many Marantz players make them so unbearable I could never hope to relax and so my brain instantly rejects them.

Apologies to others reading if I appear to ramble. How we hear is such an under-discussed topic on forums because it so often gets people upset when others have their own "truth" that doesn't match. I think there's a lot to be learned which can only help us all in understanding what we like and why. Also in cutting others some slack when they appear to hate the things we love and vice versa.

Nah, it's almost certainly Aspergers. My life's interest/obsession has been music and the means of reproducing it ever since I was a tot. I can memorise this stuff and experiences and easily regurgitate it to fellow HiFi people decades on, but anything else I forget in seconds - ask my wife!!!!! I don't 'do' small-talk either and am too lazy to be an academic in any shape or form!

Naim CDI for me. The later one with the CDM-9 mech is even better but both are just great players of music.

Really must try another CDI someday.

S.

I would've loved to try them back to back. I can live with either but my heart tells me the CDI would easily win. The CDX is a more aggressive sounding player, I feel. I really liked mine until it was totally beaten by a Copland CDA266 which I only bought because it looked pretty..Coplmd amps are as boring as anything you will ever find, but I loved that CD player.

Not sure about that, but the CD-X is a flat perspective aggressive sounding machine and updating the mechanism isn't the cause in my opinion. I get the feeling it was deliberately hobbled so as to add the XPS power supply to it. Even so, the two box version never 'flowed' like top CD players do and the CDS-2/XPS did so easily.

Me too!

I
It's a player i would love to hear, especially the valve one. I expect it to become a collector's item.

Oh no, the Isis is A LOT better than any Naim CD Player, other than maybe the 555, which may have a little more authority, but the Isis is ridiculously good for its value. Personally I would still argue the Isis wins over the 555 too.

Interesting isn’t it. I always felt that the CDS2 was a poor relative of the CDS1 and nowhere near as musical or detailed as the CDS3.

Don’t get me started on their streamers. The NDX is crap, the NDS is ok at best, and can and is bettered by streamers a tenth of the price.